Replies

"If a pedestrian is hit by a car, the driver of the car that hit the pedestrian is usually (but not always) considered to be at fault, even if the pedestrian was not in a crosswalk.

The reason for this is that most states’ negligence and traffic laws require drivers to be alert to what is around them and to pay attention to hazards in the road. A pedestrian certainly qualifies as a hazard in the road. In other words, drivers have a legal obligation to see and avoid what is there to be seen."

That's what I always thought. When you or I are driving, I am always looking for hazards, especially errant pedestrians, bike riders, baby carraiges, balls spilling out on the street with children to follow.

I was taught to give pedestrians a very wide berth and to slow down when approaching. Neither of these things happened in this case. I think the programming has a long way to go in this area. I wonder if the people programming these cars are drivers themselves or just programmers?

“...I think the programming has a long way to go in this area...”

A very long way. What choices can the car make? Brake hard, steer away.... What if that means hitting something else -
another car - head on? Hitting a bridge? Parked car? What if the choice is hitting an old man or a young child? Big dog or child? There is no guidance on how to program, no safe haven - and thus prime for endless litigation.

I wonder if the people programming these cars are drivers themselves or just programmers?

***********

They have immense experience as passengers in these...

STUPID BAD LAW

If a pedestrian walks or runs, he can move with or against traffic.

But if riding a bicycle, the rider must move with traffic only. The is the STUPIDEST BAD LAW EVER! Only ONE set of eyes are looking instead of two. Plus the bike rider has 100x the motivation to avoid an accident but law requires blind riding, hoping drivers do not hit you.

What Regulator invented this disgusting law?

GOVERNMENT SUCKS!